Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Government asks judge to dismiss Boys Ranch lawsuit

Government asks judge to dismiss Boys Ranch lawsuit

Dec 14, 2007 - 04:07:06 CST

By BLAKE NICHOLSON
Associated Press Writer

The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics does not have legal grounds to sue over foster care referrals to the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, a state government lawyer says.

Assistant Attorney General Douglas Bahr has asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation and some North Dakota taxpayers who believe public money is being used to indoctrinate young people with religion.

Richard Bolton, an attorney for the plaintiffs, had not yet filed a response to Bahr's motion on Thursday. He was out of the office Thursday and unavailable for immediate comment.

Foundation spokesman Dan Barker said asking for a dismissal of the lawsuit based on legal standing is not really addressing the issue.

The foundation lawsuit, filed in June, says referrals to the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, which serves troubled children, are funded by taxpayer money and that staff at the ranch facilities in Minot, Fargo and Bismarck indoctrinate children with religion.

Officials of the state and the Boys and Girls Ranch, which is affiliated with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, dispute the foundation's claims.

Bahr, in his motion, said the foundation can challenge only specific legislative appropriations and not government officials' use of money on constitutional grounds.

The foundation is suing Lisa Bjergaard, director of juvenile services for the state Corrections Department; state School Superintendent Wayne Sanstead; state Human Services Director Carol Olson; Daniel Richter, director of Ward County Social Services; and Pierce County Social Services Director Mary Hermanson.

The lawsuit asks a judge to declare a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state, and to order the government to stop sending children or money to the ranch if religion remains a part of the services offered.

Olson and Gene Kaseman, president of the ranch, have said that taxpayer money received by the ranch is not used for religious programs.

The foundation says that even if the Boys and Girls Ranch can keep public and private money separate, public money frees up more private money for religious purposes.

News > State

Printer friendly version Government asks judge to dismiss Boys Ranch lawsuit

Comments

Wheres the Alternative wrote on Jan 4, 2009 9:59 PM:

" OK, Freedom From Religion-types. Sure, we'll quit giving tax dollars to places like Dakota Boys & Girls Ranch, Home on the Range, and all the other child-support facilities with a religious flavor. They can all go bankrupt. INSTEAD, we'll send them to similar, high-quality homes that athiests have set up. OH, WHAT'S THAT? There aren't any? Well, that speaks volumes, don't it. "

Erica Segon wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Hello! My name is Erica. My fiance and I came through the town of Beach. We fell in love with it. When we got there around 4:30 wendsday nite. We decided to go for walk downtown. We looked in couple of the shop windows around town. Then we wondered in to La Playa "mexican restraunt". The owner Natalie took us all around beach. We were very pleased with what we seen.

Anyway your proably wondering why I'm telling you all of this. Well befor we were dropped off at our destination, Natalie told me about how they need more help at home on the range. My dream since I was a little girl was to help people. That sounds like the perfect job for me. If you are as interested as I am please contact me at my e-mail address at aireyerie@aol.com

Thank you very much,

Erica Segon "

Why Must I accept Your God wrote on Dec 21, 2007 8:57 AM:

" To Listen to the Words: The fight is about my children being forced to accept YOUR GOD. What church my family belongs to and what religion I practice is my CHOICE by the Constitution of the US and the Constitution of the State of ND. The point is that DBGR, DHS, and it's affiliates are FORCING my family into accepting a specific set of religious teachings. Just because you believe your God is RIGHT does not make my families God Wrong. That's the point. It is the lack of CHOICE in religious (or lack of) teachings that is the issue here - the lack of the famlies religious choices are not respected as the law demands - they are being ignored by the facility. "

To Listen to the Words wrote on Dec 20, 2007 4:58 PM:

" Believe in the resurrection or go to Hell. Are those the words that Missouri Synod Lutherans want people to listen to? You're the WRONG kind of Christians to be teaching our kids. (pretty slick website you've got though). "

Listen to the words wrote on Dec 20, 2007 3:18 PM:

" Listen to the words of God. Where are the parents of these children who are in these facilities? I am willing to bet not in a Catholic or any other church for that matter. Maybe if the parents allowed their children to listen to the words of God it MIGHT help them out or even respect humanity a little bit more. Instead of the parents sueing these people use the money toward a private religious education for them. Afterall is it the kids you are trying to protect or your checkbook? "

John Ford wrote on Dec 20, 2007 5:07 AM:

" Unfortunately, Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch won't budge on it's requiring the kids to attend DBGR's choice of religious or spiritual programming on "it's" campus. One can only speculate why DBGR is so intent on forcing it's beleifs on others while being primarily funded by tax dollars. Other religiously sponsored facilities don't violate the the rights of kids and families as DBGR does. "

Wandering wrote on Dec 19, 2007 6:42 PM:

" Do you think it would be possible for these organization to still have these programs and allow patients to go to worship services from time to time. Off campus of course. And maybe allow a choice of worship service to attend. Maybe if they did something like this, they might be in compliance with the foundations wishes. And also not discrimanate against any other Religion. For this is what this seems to be about. Just a little change of policy, may save a half million in attorney fees. "

Avid Reader wrote on Dec 19, 2007 3:14 PM:

" DBGR is not a party to this law suit. "

to online editor wrote on Dec 19, 2007 1:15 PM:

" Does the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch have there own attorney on this case? "

From a Former Missouri Synod Lutheran wrote on Dec 18, 2007 9:44 AM:

" To Simple Lutheran: I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran and, luckily, have had a chance to know a different "God" in my lifetime - one that is loving and kind - not punishing and hurtful. I do not believe, as the Lutheran Church taught, that people like Mother Teresa would go to hell because she does not know the Lutheran God. I would rather spend eternity in Hell with people like Mother Teresa than in Heaven than with the Missouri Synod Lutherans. "

John Ford wrote on Dec 18, 2007 9:12 AM:

" To Mouth of the South: I appreciate your thoughts and comments and your willingness to try and learn what you are talking about before posting. I do want to post two short cut and pastes, one from the DBGR website and one from the Home on the Range Website regarding the spiritual life programs: DBGR Program: “clients are present for most Christian groups and activities, and they are expected to be appropriate and respectful during this spiritual life programming.” Home on the Range Program: “Bible Study is a voluntary educational group…”. I think this sums it up, DBGR makes you attend thier program while Home on the Range is a voluntary program. That sums it up for me. As a Roman Catholic, and a parent, there are aspects of the Lutheran Chuch that concern me and I didn't want my child taught to beleive; Two of them are, and this is according to Lutheran Church websites, that the Lutheran relgion is the only "true religion" and the other is that "free will" can only be used for evil. Take a look at Simple Lutheran's posts. While I respect his right to beleive, he frightens me and I hope he is not teaching children. Religious freedom has to be protected and I fully stand by the anyones right to beleive or not beleive and if you beleive than you have the right to choose how to beleive. Just something to think about, although there were other licensed facilities to send our child, DHS refused and even though we had the means to fund the placement, we had done it before, DHS was hell bent on placing our child where they wanted her, DBGR, at tax payers expense. if I were a tax payer, I would be asking why? "

Simple Lutheran wrote on Dec 18, 2007 12:17 AM:

" I'm glad that means that all North Dakota facilities run by religious organizations will still be able to show "Passion of the Christ." Problem solved. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 17, 2007 8:04 PM:

" to Mr. Ford; I did some quick research through google. Didn't have much luck with budgets but did find out that Home on the Range appears to have even more state placements than Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch. That would lead me to believe that this facility receives even more state monies. However, what worries me here, is that in pursuing this suit against one facility, it will adversely effect all other facilities in the same class. Many young people have been helped by these homes and these homes would most likely not be in existence without their religious sponsors. For the record, I am neither Lutheran or Catholic. But my personal belief is that these homes do far more good than harm and I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to provide payment for the care and counseling of troubled children (many parents cannot afford these costs on top of their regular bills) whether in a religious sponsored home or a state sponsored home. However, I can also understand your frustration with this system and the concerns of your child. Good luck with their situation and hope that things eventually work out well for them. "

Correction wrote on Dec 16, 2007 3:42 PM:

" "According to a Bismarck tribune story back in June of this year, Carol Olson Executive Director of DHS was quoted as stating the State of North Dakota will have spent $7.9 million dollars housing children at DHS bu July 2007. Should have read "housing children at DBGR by July 2007, not DHS". This figure was a yearly total. Also "Without the State funding, DBGR would exsist." Should read "Without the State funding DBGR wouldn't exsist". Sorry about the typo. "

Avid Reader wrote on Dec 16, 2007 3:25 PM:

" Ah, Simple Lutheran returns. In an earlier post you suggested that "If you don't like it, you should move to Europe or Iraq, where they've never had God! ". It's an interesting thought. Did you know that there are 4 times as many members of the Lutheran faith living in Europe, 36 million as there are in the US 8.4 million? While I respect your devotion to your faith and it's convictions, you really should know where you faith got it's start and continues to be the strongest before you make ill thought out comments. "

Simple Lutheran wrote on Dec 16, 2007 10:52 AM:

" I bet DBGR keeps the types of detailed records that will shed some light on the financial and constitutional issues being raised here. "

John Ford wrote on Dec 16, 2007 10:44 AM:

" According to a Bismarck tribune story back in June of this year, Carol Olson Executive Director of DHS was quoted as stating the State of north Dakota will have spent $7.9 million dollars housing children at DHS bu July 2007. In the same article article, Gene Kaseman, President of Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch states that 80% of thier funding comes from the State of North Dakota. Without the State funding, DBGR would exsist. I can't give you figures for the other facilities. While this information is available via the Open Records Law, as I am a plaintiff in this suit, I will be denied access to this information. Perhaps you Mouth of the South would be willing to avail your right as a citizen of North Dakota and make the request and let the rest of us know what goes to the other facilities. I am sure it is similiar to the DBGR figures. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 16, 2007 10:26 AM:

" to Mr. Ford; Thank you for your prompt response. Does clarify your situation a bit more and makes it easier to understand your feelings. But please do not be offended by my next question. Is it possible that a mountain is being made out of a molehill? Just to clarify this situation a bit more, would now like to know just how much state money is going into these organizations and for what purposes? Is it possible to get a report on that somewhere? "

Annie wrote on Dec 16, 2007 9:33 AM:

" What a misleading headline. "Government" is kind of a grand word for "Assistant State Attorney General", isn't it? He's not even the Attorney General, but the "Assistant" Attorney General. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this case if I were you. It's important that our constitution is upheld, and if the FFRF hadn't taken the part of these kids and parents, they'd have remained unheard. Nobody would have taken the kids or the parents seriously, because obviously they must both be bad, and/or mentally ill. Funny how the church-run organization was not going to listen, but a group of atheists was. "

Lost wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:43 PM:

" I see this as a no win either way. I remember years ago, There was a petition going around wanting the FCC to require local broadcaster to give away Sunday morning airtime to religious organization to broadcast the Sunday worship services. Which on the surface would seem ok. But let us not forget about satanic worship. For if we have to allow one, than we have to allow the other. Otherwise we are discrimating against them. I would rather have the religious organization pay their own way. And let the broadcaster choice whose services they want to air. Now to this situtation, As of now the state is choosing who receives the money. But say a precident is set in court. And say the state has a right to give to a religious organization. Then some atheists start this service and request state or federal funding. The state can refuse but they go to court on discrimination charges. I see a no win. "

JB wrote on Dec 15, 2007 6:45 PM:

" If I may dust off a personal favorite: I think we're just gonna have to call the dog-gone U.N. AND the Peace Corps to fix the mess that North Dakota's become. "

John Ford wrote on Dec 15, 2007 5:57 PM:

" In answer to some of Mouth of the South's questions directed to me: First and foremost not all the "religiously sponsored" facilities are run as DBGR is. The first residential treatment facility our child was placed at was Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch in Billings, MT. They offer a non-denominational spiritual program run by a Quaker minister. The children have a choice to participate or not, and I find that acceptable. It's interesting to note that the Missouri Synod branch of the Lutheran Church runs this facility as well, but it is not a fanatical administration there. Our concerns and beliefs were treated with respect. Unlike at Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, we, the parents, were subjected to what I can only describe as religious "cult like" practices by the "mental health professionals" at DBGR in meetings we attended. As for Home on the Range, I don't have any personal experience with that facility but I have spoken to parents that have. They tell me their religious preferences were honored there. If any facility, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Hebrew, Muslim or any other religious faith is forcing its philosophies or beliefs on children and their families, then yes, I would want them shut down or their practices stopped. Just a thought, if DBGR is not violating children and families religious freedoms, then why doesn't the State of North Dakota and DBGR just agree to put it in writing open up the facility to inspections by an arbitration committee? It would be a simple and less costly process if what Carol Olson and Gene Kaseman claim is the truth. Why are they fighting so hard to keep the truth out of the Court system? "

JB wrote on Dec 15, 2007 3:24 PM:

" Mouth from the South, you said: "I don't recall being taught or reading anywhere that religion was banned from being involved in the state. That has been a fairly new development. " I'd put the date at 1789, maybe as early as 1776. And now, once again, in 2007. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 15, 2007 2:23 PM:

" Oh and I always thought, and was taught, that the main concern of our founding fathers was that there should be no interference from the state in the free expression of religion. I don't recall being taught or reading anywhere that religion was banned from being involved in the state. That has been a fairly new development. "

JB wrote on Dec 15, 2007 2:20 PM:

" I am troubled that a Lutheran home for youth would show the Passion of the Christ. It troubles me as a Lutheran, a taxpayer and an American. That pornographic propaganda film does not represent my spirituality at all. The governor should step in and use his power as chief executive to uphold both the state and federal constitution here. That's why we pay him. Otherwise the lawyers are going to step in for the parties. Is that relevant enough, "Mouth from the South"? "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 15, 2007 1:41 PM:

" to JB; Sorry, but I don't believe that these homes should be sponsored by Taxpayers money as their primary means of support. Way too much room for politics to intrude in how and who should run them, etc. Just look at some of the state run organizations making headlines today. Plus, in my opinion, less government interference is in the best interests of all the people. And from my past experience with working with troubled children, most were placed in the appropriate facility as regards to age, sex and religious preference. Granted, this was a few years ago, but I seriously doubt that the practice has changed that much. There are going to be instances of a child being placed where it is not the parents choice, but doubt that this happens often. I, personally, don't have a problem with some taxpayers money going into these homes, as long as it is on a limited basis and if it is done so for the best interest of the child. After all, these families pay taxes also. Now, why did you bring up Hoeven, etc? It is not relevant to this discussion. Taxpayer money has been going into these places for years. It certainly did not depend upon who was Governor at the time. Oh, and we did have and still do have a state run group facilities for troubled children. One of these was the State Hospital in Jamestown. However, sending a child there and labeling them "insane" really helped correct their problems. Oh, and these other facilities are neither archaic or irrelevant. Spirituality is just as prevalent now as it was back then. And just as necessary to some as atheism is to others. "

JB wrote on Dec 15, 2007 11:34 AM:

" To Mouth From the South: Or, ND could move past the insidious operational model it has right now, and use taxpayer money directly to run these homes. This isn't the wild west, it isn't 1892, and the church's role is not as relevant anymore, if at all, in providing effective social services. In ND, I would argue the "Ranch" also serves as a funnel of money to Governor Hoeven's right wing Christian Republican supporters, my own faith, the ELCA. Maybe Governor Hoeven should turn WSI and DHS over to the Lutherans. I'll be pope. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 15, 2007 11:06 AM:

" to Chavez; I am not going all moralistic here. But what is fair is fair. Anyhow, if my child has been sent to a group home sponsored by people of the Islamic faith, than I should expect he/she to be exposed to some facets of that spiritual belief. However, my main point is that these homes are mostly all sponsored by a religious group and all receive referrals from the state. Many times these children are wards of the court and need to be sent somewhere to live until they can get their lives back on track. And some of them have to be paid for with state monies. The only answer I see for this, as said in my previous post, is to remove the religious sponsors from these homes, thereby freeing them up to receive taxpayers money. Or to quit using spirituality as a source of counseling and help for these children, which is the basic reason for the existence of these group homes. Or better yet, don't send any child in need of these services to these homes. No matter how hard you try, you cannot take spirituality and faith away from Churchs or the organizations they sponsor. A belief in the existence of God is their only reason for existence. Oh and does this also apply to Foster Homes? Will this lawsuit soon extend to suing because state money is being paid to Foster homes for the care of children and they are being taken to Church by their Foster parents? AND not always the church of the parents choice. Just wondering. "

Tommy wrote on Dec 15, 2007 10:51 AM:

" Tax dollars and religion dont mix.... nobody should have religion forced upon them. it is a choice. "

A Few Notes wrote on Dec 15, 2007 10:16 AM:

" Well said Chavez, well said. "

Chavez wrote on Dec 15, 2007 8:59 AM:

" The question is really not about this Lutheran organization and its understandable deisre to teach its religious point of view. The issue is that they receive tax-payer's money and because of that they are not allowed to push their religious point of view. If they cease taking tax dollars, fine; more power to them, I wish them well. But until then, they are in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But no, the moralists among us here whine about "persecution" of their religion; but Lord, if that institution taught Islamic doctrine, I have no doubt whatsoever that the self-righteous would be up in arms (as would I). This isn't rocket science or quantum physics, folks, it is quite simple. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:51 PM:

" How very sad. A program and facility sponsored and began by the Lutheran Church to help those in need is now being sued to remove the Lutheran Church from this facility because referrals are coming from the state. Did I get this right? Don't some of you get this? This was started as a religious based home and program. And they have the right to continue in that vein. IF you do not want your children to be "indoctrinated" in the Lutheran Religion, maybe you should make sure that your child doesn't need to be sent to a facility like this. Would Mr. Ford have the same objections if his child were to be sent to Home on the Range at Sentinel Butte? A facility sponsored and started by the Catholic Faith. All of these residential programs, to the best of my knowledge, receive referrals from the state and have for many years. Is this group planning on suing Home on the Range also? Just a couple of questions that I think need to be answered. "

A Few Notes wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:04 PM:

" To Emily: Is forcing the children at DBGR to watch the movie "The Passions of the Christ" to considered "general"? I think not. Even I, who was raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran (which I no longer practice) was unable to watch this movie. It was too horrific and overbearing for me as an adult. Imagine the mental-anguish it could cause young, impressionable, and emotionally unstable children. I think this is more than "general" and "a few Bible Stories". In addition, as far as I am aware, neither myself as a parent nor the legal custodian was asked for permission for my underage child to view such as a Graphically Violent and Universally Disturbing movie. Considering it's rating, parental and/or custodial permissions should have been requested prior to my underage child being forced to view it. "

John F wrote on Dec 14, 2007 5:50 PM:

" To Emily: While I don't think it appropriate for me to reveal all the documentation we have to support our claims, I will say we would have taken our child to services or had arragnements for someone in Minot to take her. We weren't given that option. We objected to the spiritual programming that DBGR requires of all children placed there. You are mistaken about the Bible being the same for all religions. It's a theological debate best left to theologians, however, if you would like to get an overview, try the following link: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm Unfortunately, while "Simple Lutheran" may be closed minded, he is basically correct when he claims that only Lutherans will be blessed with God's grace based upon the Lutheran teachings. That is a teaching that Martin Luther included in his biblical translations. For me and my faith, anyone is worthy of God's grace simply for the asking. The Lutheran teachings are not something I think children should be taught, and I got to see the fanaticism first hand in meetings with DBGR executives over our objections to our child being "forced" to attend the programming over both her objections as well as us as parents. Perhaps things have changed since you worked there, or perhaps the issue was never raised by other parents. "

Emily wrote on Dec 14, 2007 4:55 PM:

" I am wondering if Mr. Ford was willing to transport his child to Roman Catholic services? Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch DOES NOT prohibit parents from teaching their own beliefs to the child, but the parent must be willing to take on that responsibility. In addition, to say that DBGR "indoctrinates" children with the Lutheran religion is ludicrous. I worked at DBGR in the past and the spirituality programming was very general and consisted mostly of the telling of Bible stories. The last time I checked, it is the same Bible regardless of whether you are Catholic or Luteran. "

Racist Biker wrote on Dec 14, 2007 3:14 PM:

" To: "Simple Lutheran" I too am Lutheran but I have never heard in church that our faith "is the one true faith" or "it is better than other so-called Christian faiths because it teaches the truth." I'm pretty sure my Pastor never taught that to me in catechism class. I thought that Lutherans were better than the "holier than tho" attitude but I guess not. "

Avid Reader wrote on Dec 14, 2007 2:39 PM:

" Wasn't the Church of England, the Lutheran Church, the first church to authorize divorce? According to my faith, divorce is nothing more than morally condoned adultry? Interesting simple Lutheran, God gaives Lutherans permission to break one the "ten commandments". How conveinent and enjoyable for you and your faith. "

To Simple Lutheran wrote on Dec 14, 2007 2:38 PM:

" So if I become a Lutheran and then follow in people like Ted Bundy's footsteps - I'll still go to heaven? And people like Mother Teresa will go to hell? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly. "

MamaMia wrote on Dec 14, 2007 2:38 PM:

" To Simple Lutheran: Heavy on the Simple, huh? "

Simple Lutheran wrote on Dec 14, 2007 1:41 PM:

" People of faith don't have to follow "your" constituion and laws. We follow God's law, as it is written in the BIBLE (maybe you've heard of it??). The bible is the infalable word of God. Martin Luther started the faith along time before this country, so don't you think God wanted it that way? There is no need to debate any of this in court or anywhere else. Lutherans are going to Heaven and all other non-believers and other "Christians" are not. You are NOT going to convince me otherwise with your lies about evolution, or science or anything else. I have faith that God will see Boys RAnch through this against you seculer types. Thank you. "

Christians are at it again wrote on Dec 14, 2007 1:24 PM:

" Would you Christians be happy if they were being taught Islam? I doubt it. The atheists in this country are tired of Christians thinking that, because they are the majority, they can have their beliefs instituted into government programs. The FIrst Amendment guarantees religious liberty, and the only way to obtain that liberty is to not have a state/country mandated religion. "

Avid Reader wrote on Dec 14, 2007 1:19 PM:

" To all who found my earlier post offensive, I apologize. My comment to go form your own country was meant to be a 'tongue in cheek" comment. I support the right of each and every citizen to beleive or not believe in God and if they choose to believe in God, then they have a right to do so how they choose. That I beleive is an inalieinable right of our Constitution. "

Rasmus wrote on Dec 14, 2007 1:04 PM:

" Yet another issue that will send the fundies over the edge. Fundamentalists fear the courtroom. They can't shout down their opponents, lie about the Constitution, lie about our laws, lie about the Founding Fathers' intent, or tell the judge to move to another country. These things don't work. I eagerly await the news of what evidence will be presented and how the Attorney General's office tries to explain that away. "

Online Editor wrote on Dec 14, 2007 1:00 PM:

" To readers: Normally we do not allow posts that contain the type of information John Ford is providing. However, I have talk with Ford in the past and no his situation, so his information is being posted. "

Online Editor wrote on Dec 14, 2007 12:57 PM:

" To You're all nuts: I was eating lunch, I'm a little behind on comments. "

A Few Notes wrote on Dec 14, 2007 12:50 PM:

" And the constitution of North Dakota so states: Article 1, Section 3: The Free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state.... and Article 1, Section 23: The state of North Dakota is an inseparable part of the American union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. So, by it's own constitution, in this State of ND, I have the right to practice my religion (or lack thereof) and the Constitution of the US will by being the supreme law of the land, overshadows any ND law. In addition, because of my right, it is also my right to choose what religion (or lack of) that my children will practice without discrimination. This lawsuit is about taxpayer moneys being used to force children and parents into accepting a specific religious doctrine set down by the churches backing DBGR and DBGRs employees and programs. "

Simple Lutheran wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:39 AM:

" The Dakoa Boys and Girls Ranch should be allowed to continue teaching the Lutheran faith. It is the one true faith - it is better than other so-called Christian faiths because it teaches the truth. If you obey the Bible and accept Jesus, Son of God, as the Judge of your life you will go to Heaven. If you don't accept Lutheran beliefs, which are the ONE true way, you will go to Hell. You can't make it any simpler, or easier, than that. And our country is a Christian nation. If it wasn't how do you explain all the people that have been president that have been christian? Again, it seems easy enough to understand. If you don't like it, you should move to Europe or Iraq, where they've never had God! "

MamaMia wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:29 AM:

" To Chavez: Well said, sir/madam, well said! "

Been there wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:29 AM:

" DBR does have a lot of God signs in their cottages. They do not treat their clients in a godly manner. They do not teach their clients in a good way. The staff in the cottages are not truthful. One director I had met was not very kind or concerned about his future client. So you atheist and agnostics at DBR all they have are signs. "

John Ford wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:29 AM:

" Once again, I find myself having to do the work of the news reporters on this issue. As a co-plaintiff in this suit, I am not an athiest, but the father of an adopted and severely troubled child. My child, a citizen of Mexico, which is a Roman Catholic faith country, was placed at DBGR, over my wife's and my objections. We first asked, and then demanded Roman Catholic teachings for our child. We were flatly refused by DHS, DBGR and our local social services agency. The Lutheran Missouri Synod teachings were forced on both my child and my family. With that being said, I really want to make sure all you "experts" on what goes on at DBGR are aware that a family of the Roman Catholic faith is also a party to this law suit, not just the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It's sad that we have to take up the rights to religious freedoms for you fundamentaists as well, especially when you consider how narrow minded you are. After reading the Motion to Dismiss, it is really alarming to me that the State of North Dakota is arguing in a court document that a public official, appointed by the Governor, should have the right to violate a parent or child's right to religious freedoms. In closing, let me say that I just finished reading the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence and no where in it can I find that we are a country "founded on Christianity". "

Your all Nuts!!!! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:22 AM:

" editor: where are my comments? I entered in good tone and pointed out where seperation of church and state came from? Why did you not post? "

To Avid Reader and Jean Moch wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:03 AM:

" Apparently your "freedom" doesn't go both ways. "If you don't believe what I do, get out of the country." Nice. The Constitution guarantees the right to practice religion and the right to be free from forced practice of religion. "

Your all Nuts!!!! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 11:00 AM:

" Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." MORE INFORMATION FOR YOU! "

Your all Nuts!!!! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:57 AM:

" The phrase building a wall of separation between church and state was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Separation of church and state is a political and legal idea usually identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… THE INFORMATION YOU REQUESTED! Do you still want to argue that this was taken out of context? You my friend (rightous religious ones) take the Bible out of context all of the time! "

Chavez wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:53 AM:

" As far as what the Founders thought, how about James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution?" He said: "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood (or religion) and the devotion of the peple have been manifestly increased BY THE TOTAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH FROM THE STATE." Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819. Madison also said this: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other relgions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? Madison, from his "Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785. "

Your all Nuts!!!! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:51 AM:

" I am beginning to think everyone is just plain stupid- Not a good feeling or place to be. Religion and state are suppose to be seperate - What makes your religion right compares to my religion? United States would crumble with out this seperation- You all realize this correct (you need to for the future of our children)! Boys Girls Ranch is a state facility for troubled children- They use religion - but what religion? One? Many? Do you all get what this means? I dont really think you all do! Our country was founded and started with the idea that no religion was better than the other- That we can live together with out forcing our ideas on each other, under some basic guidelines that all religions believe-----TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED- than after that you can practice praying to what ever God fits you/ works for you! It was not founded on Christianity being the only way- Presidents appointed by God- Jewish being the only way to heaven----It took all groups and gave them a place to call home without ridicule or laws stating they couldnt practise what they believe..... With allowing the Boys/Girls Ranch to do whatever they want- ruins the basic principles of which the United States was founded on! Why should my money go to fund what YOU believe? Honestly answer this. It would be like me stating your tax money needs to fund Terrorism- because I believe terrorism is the only way to get rid of you rightous religious ones! You dont want that ---TO BAD! What you FORCE others to do against their beliefs will bite you in the butt later- "

Brian E. Jensen, Edina, MN wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:47 AM:

" I think that to be fair, the Atheists can run a boys camp and get referals also. The Constitutions says: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The way I read this is that the States are allowed to promote or outlaw religion but not the federal government. Even prayer is allowed. Congress just isn't allowed to pass any law requiring or banning it. "

A Few Notes wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:40 AM:

" Actually - our country was founded by a lot of people who were being persecuted for their religious (or lack of) beliefs. The stance here is that the Boys and Girls Ranch is Forcing children into the Lutheran Religion against the wishes of the parents. The children their are programmed (look at their web page on spiritual programming) and forced to accept the teachings of DBGR or they face punishment such as isolation, no contact with the family, etc. If a family wishes their child to attend a different church (or no church), the child and family are punished by visitation being forbidden and the web site specifically states that no staff will take the children off-campus to other religions - that the parents must make arrangements. So, question, if parents can't visit, how can they get their child to the church (or lack thereof) of their choice? In addition, the children are still forced into the spiritual program of DBGR. The Staff preach at the children, the spiritual counselors do as well, and the peer pressure is enormous. The fact that DBGR is largely funded by Taxpayer dollars and is using this to recruit to the Lutheran religion is very wrong. I wonder why you are all up in arms about an essentially Public Facility (i.e., funded by taxpayers money) forcing a specific religion on it's children when if you read all the comments about the teacher who showed "A Letter from Hell" are so up in arms? What DBGR is doing to the children there with taxpayer money is far far far more detrimental and far more harmful than viewing "A Letter from Hell" in a health class. "

Chavez wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:34 AM:

" To Really?: You are right, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution...neither do the words "Fair trial," "interstate commerce," or even "religious liberty." By your logic, if those exact words are not in the contitution, it is not binding, is that it? If so, fair trials are not consitutionally protected. The term "wall of separation" or "separation of church and state" is merely a phrase used to describe the doctrine found in the First Amendment--it is clearly there. But you know else, Really?, nowhere in the constitution are the words "God" or "Jesus Christ" or "Holy Spirit" found either--they were left out on purpose to ensure freedom of religion of all (even those who chose not the believe). The contitution was written as a godless document onpurpose, to show no favoritism to any faith. The Founding Fathers understood the danger of having religious dogma running the levels of state power (such as the Religious Right seeks to do these days): history is littered with the bodies of those killed in the name of God for this faith or that, and supported by governments. No thanks, the Founders were wise in keeping our constitution and the government they created a secular one. "

Honestly wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:14 AM:

" What is wrong with our world today? Some have to complain about everything - and sue everyone! Our primary concern should be - are these kids learning a new set of values that will benefit them, and society, for the rest of their lives! Do we want to pay for their prison stay, as well? Many of these kids have not experience the positives in life - now they are. Go find something else to complain about - like how about a trip to Siberia with no clothes? Right now that sounds too good for these sue happy people! "

Once Again wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:57 AM:

" The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We as a majority need to speak up in cases like this. This is getting to be ridiculous!!!! "

Avid Reader wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:47 AM:

" Way too go Jean Moch. This country was founded on "Freedoms" period, I for one am tired of hearing the latest battle cry from the "religious right". Why don't you go and do what the Hebrews did, and found your own country if you want, instead of trying to force your values on the rest of the us free citizens! DBGR needs to be shut down if they can't provide the freedom for children and their familes to pick and choose how they wish to beleive or worship. Long live freedom of choice. "

why wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:32 AM:

" I can not figure this group out! do they really have this much time on there hands to worry about the way things are going at the boys and girls ranch. I wander is anything going on in the national atheists and agnostics group. Maybe we better see if tax payer money is being used by this group to push there beliefs. I bet if we had as much time as they did we could find some thing wrong with them too. Also I have been to the boys and girls ranch transporting young people there to stay and to other legal appointments. Not once has a young person told me when we talked that the ranch was in the words of the National A & A "Indoctrinate young people with religion" And with separation of church and state I would like whoever can find it to let me know I would love to read it and not the writting of some one who took it out of context. "

Really? wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:45 AM:

" "Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. Read it before quoting it. "

Jean Moch wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:34 AM:

" I am in full support of the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch. I will gladly give them my tax dollars. I would rather they get it than it be used for some white house party. They do so much good for those children. It is about time that the atheist realize that this country was founded on the Christian religion and if they don't like it they can go to another part of the universe and set up their own so called way of life. "

Ubetcha! wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:10 AM:

" Here we go again. Let's see if we can turn this one into a street fight in front of the Bismarck Tribune building. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.